Kiriti Pal vs State Of West Bengal on 16 April, 2015
25. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Satish Sharma (in CRA No. 2018 of 2022), in addition to the
submissions made by learned counsel for the other appellants would
36
submit that there are material omissions and contradictions in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to
convict the appellant for the offence in question. There may be a
suspicion upon the appellant that he may also be involved in the
offence in question, but his involvement is required to be proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would also challenge the
genuineness and credibility of the test identification parade as well as
the connectivity through the CDR with the other accused persons. He
would also submit that there should be some clinching evidence to
prove the conspiracy or meeting of mind of the accused persons
before the alleged incident. There is no active participation alleged
against the present appellant Satish Sharma in the offence in question
and nothing incriminating article, which are allegedly used in
commission of the offence has been seized from the applicant Satish
Sharma. The evidence against him is only the mobile call details,
which is not sufficient to hold that he too have involved in the offence
along with other co-accused persons. He would also rely upon the
judgment of Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal, 2015 (11) SCC 178.